Summary: Women are speaking out against the sexual harassment hysteria sweeping through America. Here are two incisive essays that point out the irrational elements of the #MeToo campaign — and show why such pearl clutching will prove ineffective. Also, here you will find facts seldom mentioned about the incidence of sexual harassment.
A new America is being built. Some feminists are happy with their work. During revolutions, rules are set by the most extreme activists. There is no need for voting by the proles. The leaders speak for us!
“Dudes, are you aware how happy women would be if strangers & coworkers never “flirted” with us again like ever. This is the world we want. Do u have any idea how exhausting it is to rebuff the background noise of public & workplace flirts all the time. Each one is a tiny threat. …you see how we look, you’re appraising us, you’re thinking of us in a romantic or sexual context. We know.
“There are designated social spaces for flirting, lots of them, i’d be fine if nobody ever flirted with me again outside of those. I would honestly be fine with men fearing sexual harassment charges anytime they flirt in any workplace. Know why? because when you’re **outside** the workplace, you can flirt with people who are CHOOSING to spend time with you.”
— Marian Call (@mariancall) on Twitter. She is an Alaskan songwriter.
Not everybody agrees with Ms. Call. A small survey by Reportlinker found that 27% of people look at work to find love (and 33% of young Millennials).
Some feminists worry about the consequences of the society they’re building. So far this is just pearl clutching while the #MeToo hysteria burns. It will become meaningful when feminists provide clear rules. Rules that women follow, rather than selectively enforcing (as in “it’s not harassing behavior if I like it.”). The extreme cases are easy. As seen in these essays, the routine cases of everyday life are less so.
“The Warlock Hunt“
By Claire Berlinski (historian and journalist) in The American Interest.
“The #MeToo moment has now morphed into a moral panic that poses as much danger to women as it does to men.”
This is a stream-of-consciousness essay that makes many good points but provides little useful guidance. I recommend reading it. But a few gems deserve special note.
“Given the events of recent weeks, we can be certain of this: From now on, men with any instinct for self-preservation will cease to speak of anything personal, anything sexual, in our presence. They will make no bawdy jokes when we are listening. They will adopt in our presence great deference to our exquisite sensitivity and frailty. Many women seem positively joyful at this prospect. The Revolution has at last been achieved! But how could this be the world we want? Isn’t this the world we escaped?
“Who could blame a man who does not enjoy the company of women under these circumstances, who would just rather not have women in the workplace at all? This is a world in which the Mike Pence rule — ‘Never be alone with a woman’ — seems eminently sensible. Such a world is not good for women, however — as many women were quick to point out when we learned of the Mike Pence rule.”
Berlinski suggests several possible causes, or sparks, for the current hysteria. She appear unaware that Clinton had a 3% margin in the popular vote over Trump, not 30%.
“I’m not sure what, precisely, is now driving us over the edge. But I’d suggest looking at the obvious. The President of the United States is Donald J. Trump. …Who among us doesn’t feel profound anxiety about this? Daddy-the-President turns out to be a hapless dotard. …That’s enough to make anyone go berserk.”
—————————–
In this second essay, a woman asks an obvious question. It has an obvious answer she refuses to see.
“Is Office Romance Still Allowed?“
By Cathy Young (journalist) in the Wall Street Journal.
“Today’s sexual-harassment scandals don’t tell us much about how ordinary men and women should interact at work. It may be time to rethink the rules.”
Betteridge’s Law: when a headline asks a question, the answer is “no.” As we seen in her article.
“One thing can be said with certainty: Any notion of simply banishing romantic or sexual interactions at work will fail. Too many of us find lovers, partners and spouses in the setting where we spend most of our waking hours. To move forward from this moment, we must acknowledge not just the awful impact of sexual harassment on women but the reality that the modern workplace is, among other things, a place where romantic overtures are not always unwelcome.”
But there are few clear rules, and the “overtures” are sometimes unwelcome — unknowingly to the guy when the girl does not say “no.” Accusations can be made long afterwards, causing substantial internal turmoil — not matter what the firm’s officers decide to do. With the potential for bad publicity and cash payments. Litigation is an important factor seldom mentioned in these articles; expect a a wave of it coming more women say #MeToo. Organizations get no benefit from romance among workers, with the potential for trouble and large liabilities. We need not consult Nostradamus to predict how HR executives will respond to #MeToo.
“Though many of the men brought down by the scandals have been accused of egregious sexual impositions, from indecent exposure to rape, others have been implicated in less flagrant misconduct. …Should vastly different degrees of misconduct be punishable in the same way — by disgrace and career death? Should interaction between colleagues in social settings outside the office be subject to the same norms of propriety as workplace behavior? When, if ever, is sexualized or romantic interaction appropriate at work?”
Wonderful questions. Too bad feminists have no answers. Berlinski gives us cautionary stories. Despite such pearl clutching, the #MeToo fires continue to burn brightly.
“Four years ago, when the New York Times published a profile of Chirlane McCray, the wife of New York City mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, some were scandalized by the account of how the couple met in 1991 while working at city hall. Ms. McCray, who had long identified as a lesbian, ‘had zero interest in dating a man’ — but Mr. de Blasio was undaunted and ‘flirted with her mercilessly … calling nonstop and trying to steal an unwelcome kiss.’
“In a follow-up piece published in Slate to address concerns that the story of the de Blasio/McCray courtship sounded too much like sexual harassment, Ms. McCray was quoted as saying that he was ‘sweetly persistent, but…always respectful.’ Yet such judgments can be very much in the eye of the beholder.”
All sensible words, reflecting the complexity of life. But the next sentence plunges us back into feminist ideology.
“Laura Kipnis (Prof of Communications at Northwestern U,, author of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus
Life is so simple in feminist op-eds, right behavior so obviously right and wrong. Except when when the lines “blur” between a weak woman and her “abuser” (we’re back to flirting = abuse). Her conclusion is hand-waving while the fires burn, culminating with delusional nonsense. She provides no suggestions for guidelines, but a desire for talking out formal complaints (with the unstated threat of litigation in the background).
“Relaxing {today’s workplace policies} would make room for managers to deal with such issues in a more flexible, humane way. At the very least, it should be possible to give the parties to such disputes a chance to talk to each other. The answer, in the end, is to ensure dignity and respect in the workplace for women and men, whether accusers or accused. Finding the right balance may not be easy, but it is the only way forward if we are to accept the human — and sometimes sexual or romantic — reality of our working lives.”
—————————–
Sexual Harassment Trends in the Federal Workplace
As usual, a look at the numbers puts this hysteria in a more realistic context. Note the collapse of harassment rates during the 22 years between surveys.
2016 Survey by the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board.
But what do these people mean by “sexual harassment”? This was done by real experts, so they asked. Note this does not report the relationship of the woman and man, whether boss-employee or worker-worker. Nor do we know how third-party observers would regard these. Would they regard all these incidents of “pressure for dates” or “stalking” as harassment?
For More Information
Other articles about the ongoing revolution.
- “Whipping-Post Politics” by James Kunstler “The hit on Garrison Keillor by his old friend Minnesota Public Radio seemed like a new low in the whipping-post politics of the moment..”
- “Geoffrey Rush steps down as Australian Academy president amid allegations of inappropriate behavior.” Allegations about which he was never informed and so cannot defend himself.
- “Beware of Running with the Al Franken Story — Consider Where That Leads” by Douglas Murray.
- “Sexual Power Dynamics: Examining the Missing Part of the Story” by Douglas Murray.
- “Is Feminism the Answer to Sexual Harassment?” by Mona Charen.
- “Is ‘Weinsteining’ getting out of hand?” by Cathy Young.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, about sexual assault, about rape, and especially these…
- It’s time to forcibly re-shape America to fight the campus rape epidemic! Even if it’s fake.
- The University of Virginia shows how change comes to America: through agitprop and hysteria.
- False rape accusations tell us something important about America.
- Feminist revolutionaries seized control of colleges. Now come the tribunals…
- See universities’ programs to regulate sex. The apps are amazing!
- The unexpected response to the sexual harassment crisis.
- Weaponizing claims of sexual harassment for political gain.
- Mysteries and ironies of the next new sexual revolution.
- Worrying while the harassment fires burn out of control.
A counterpoint to the debate.
Well worth reading: Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women
“Philosophy professor Christina Sommers has exposed a disturbing development: how a group of zealots, claiming to speak for all women, are promoting a dangerous new agenda that threatens our most cherished ideals and sets women against men in all spheres of life. In case after case, Sommers shows how these extremists have propped up their arguments with highly questionable but well-funded research, presenting inflammatory and often inaccurate information and stifling any semblance of free and open scrutiny. Trumpeted as orthodoxy, the resulting ‘findings’ on everything from rape to domestic abuse to economic bias to the supposed crisis in girls’ self-esteem perpetuate a view of women as victims of the ‘patriarchy’.
“Moreover, these arguments and the supposed facts on which they are based have had enormous influence beyond the academy, where they have shaken the foundations of our educational, scientific, and legal institutions and have fostered resentment and alienation in our private lives. Despite its current dominance, Sommers maintains, such a breed of feminism is at odds with the real aspirations and values of most American women and undermines the cause of true equality. Who Stole Feminism? is a call to arms that will enrage or inspire, but cannot be ignored.”
